Paul T. Richman, P.A. v. Consolidated Bank, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Paul T. Richman, P.A. v. Consolidated Bank, N.A.

519 So. 2d 741, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 383, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 466, 1988 WL 8121

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 9, 1988

DocketNo. 87-150

StatusPublished

This text of 519 So. 2d 741 (Paul T. Richman, P.A. v. Consolidated Bank, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Paul T. Richman, P.A. v. Consolidated Bank, N.A., 519 So. 2d 741, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 383, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 466, 1988 WL 8121 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment against the defendant-counter plaintiff Richman is reversed in its entirety and the cause remanded for trial because the record shows genuine issues as to (a) whether, as claimed in the complaint, the plaintiff bank reasonably incurred attorney’s fees in the amount sought in attempting to secure the payment of a debt owed by Richman; and (b) whether, as alleged in the counterclaim, the bank was guilty of (i) defamation of Rich-man’s credit for untruthfully representing to a credit bureau that he had not appropriately made the required payments, and (ii) conversion by refusing to release its interest in the collateral and in insurance proceeds when its outstanding debt had been discharged by payment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The summary judgment against the defendant-counter plaintiff Richman is reversed in its entirety and the cause remanded for trial because the record shows genuine issues as to (a) whether, as claimed in the complaint, the plaintiff bank reasonably incurred attorney’s fees in the amount sought in attempting to secure the payment of a debt owed by Richman; and (b) whether, as alleged in the counterclaim, the bank was guilty of (i) defamation of Rich-man’s credit for untruthfully representing to a credit bureau that he had not appropriately made the required payments, and (ii) conversion by refusing to release its interest in the collateral and in insurance proceeds when its outstanding debt had been discharged by payment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

519 So. 2d 741, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 383, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 466, 1988 WL 8121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-t-richman-pa-v-consolidated-bank-na-fladistctapp-1988.